Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-03-24 (02)·'· • • • City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes fl ~ppro March 24, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Alison Webster called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, March 24, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Acting Chair Webster and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Scot Siegel and Philip Stewart. Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Chait Colin Cooper and Vice Chair Julia Glisson were excused. Staff present wete Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A vote on the Minutes of ianuazy28.2008 was postponed until the next meeting. V. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 10, 2008) 'v New Flood Management Area Map and Related Amendments (LU 07-0085) A request from the City of Lake Oswego regarding: • Adoption of a new Flood Management Atea Map; and, • Amendments to l..OC Articles 50.02 (Definitions) and 50.44 (Flood Management Area) Acting Chait Webster opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. When she asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest, norte Were declared. Collllllissiorter Siegel reported that although he had not been present at the March 1Oth hearing, he had listened to the recorcling of the meeting . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 24,2008 Pagel of5 ·- Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He reported that City Engineering Department -staff had found that the new Federal Emergency • Management Area (PEMA) maps of the Flood Management Area along the Willamette River were still based on 1987 d_a:ta a,nd did not incllJde some @.reas inundated by the 1996 flood. Because of that, Erigiileering staff had re-mapped it so it reflected 1996 flood elevation levels, which were generally about a foot higher than the base flood the FEMA map showed. He said developers would no longer have to individually establish the elevation because flood elevations Were already set and mapped. He clarified that the current code already regulated cut and fill and floor area el~vations of developments along the Willamette River based on 1996 flood levels. He noted representatives of the Lake Oswego Corporation and Foothills property owners had requested that the Planning Commission continue-the hearing to give them more time to consider the proposal. Mr. Egner said he hoped the Planning Commission could forward the matter to the City Council in time for the Council to hear it in May. During the questioning period, he confirmed. that the new maps served to clarify what the code already required and that proposed additional regulation of the Historic Overflow Area Went beyond what FEMA required. Public Testimony Skip O'Neill, President of the Lake Oswego Comoration, related th~t the Corporation had been considering ways to release more water from the lake since the 1996 flood, but they h~d only recently thought about modifying the dam itself. He said shareholders w~re concerned about new regulations that would require the floor a,rea to be rai~ed a couple of feet if a structure were damaged by flood or fire. He reported that a committee had been • formed and had been considering the FEMA-related changes, but they wanted more time to review the current staff proposal. He pointed out that committee member, M~k Eves, h~d emailed "comments and recommendations to the Planning Cormnission. He confirmed the Lake Oswego Corporation was keepi_ng its shareholders informed. There was no other testimony. i Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 07-0085 to April 14. 2008. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Cormnissioner Siegel asked staff to re~pond to all issues raised in previous public testimony at the next hearing; VI. PLANNING COMMISSION~ WORK SESSION ~o111munity Development Code Amendments (PP 08-0002) Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC), Chapter 50 (Community Development Code), clarifying, correcting and updating sections. The Commissioners continued to categorize proposed changes to deflilitions into those that they determined actually required a policy decision and public mput and those that Were "housekeeping" measures. Items to discuss during the work session were highlighted. Commissioner Brockman was concerned the code allowed too many exceptions to setbacks, buffering and height regulations. She cited the example that the • cocie allowed exceptions to maxittmm roof height. She said that' eroded the community's City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 24, 2008 Page~ of5 • • • trust in the integrity of the process. She saw a need for the City to reconsider the general policy of allowing exceptions. She stressed tha:t it was important for neighbors to know what could be built next door. Mr. Egner advised that the Planning Commission was to hear recommendations from the lnfill Task Force and that might be a good time to discuss exceptions. He noted Task Force members bad been studying infill development for a long time; they had agreed to allow specific exceptions for specific reasons, and they could explain that to the Commissioners. Commissioner Siegel suggested that it might be better to ask the Task Force to consider the poli~y of allowing exceptions before they forwarded a finalized proposal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Egner acknowledged that "maximum roof height;' was actually a ''base height'' that could be extended in order to add certain features on a roof that might add interest and variation to the structure. He reported the Infill Task Force planned to consider how to encourage lower profile bu_ildip.gs on sloped lots in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) at their next meeting. Mr. Boone observed that some exceptions helped a developer deal with the topography without having to ask for a variance, but others were policy driven and intended to produce the results the City wanted, such as the exception to setbacks for older houses in Old To-wn that was intended to preserve them. The Commissioners examined Structure Design. Staff explained the proposed changes clarified that the Front Setback Plane requirement was to apply to each street frontage when a street was on two sides of a lot, a,nd if that created a problem for the developer, he/she could use the Residential lnfill Design (RID) process. They clarified that the current code allowed exceptions, which, for example, would allow a dormer to pierce the Front Setback Plane. They related that the upcoming Infill Task Force proposal would propose to allow more than two dormers because that group found the result could be a pleasing design and serve to break up the street elevation. During the discussion, staff reconsidered recommending removing the Front Setback Plane requirement from a flag lot when they recalled the upcoming infill proposal called for the access lane to function as a small street and Commissioner Brockman recalled a situation where the house back on the flag lot was still too large and imposing on the street. She also was concerned about privacy issues for neighbors without the front plane requirement. The Commissioners examined Lot Dimensions. Staff asked for guidance on how to apply side yard setbacks to zero lot line (common wall) dwellings on two adjacent lots. They also suggested how the side yard was to be measured when sidewalls undulated and affected the perspective from the street. They explained the setback issue came up when a developer wanted to redevelop adjacent 30-foot wide lots and make the attached dwellings as wide as possible. That left five-foot wide !!;ide setbacks. Commissioner Siegel suggested the Comtl1issioners learn ll10re about this from the Infill Task Force at the infill hearings. Mr. Egner explained that FAN required a front porch and allowed a covered front porch to extend into the setback, however, a determination was necessary about whether the front porch could recede jnto the house, because the code did not call for a "projecting'' front porch. He said the existing incentive to push a garage back from the front of a house in return for bonus lot coverage had been intended to break up the blilk of the house. It applied in all zones. However because developers in FAN took advantage of City of Lake Oswego Planning Cor(Unission Min~Jtes of March i4, 2008 P~ge 3 of5 that provision by constructing both an attached and detached garage, the upcoming infill proposal would eliminate it there. He explained that the code updates clarified how far • the garage had to be pushed back from the house front elevation and established the method of measuring whether the front potch met the requirement that it had to be at least 50% of the building width. Mr. Egner said the staff still had to discuss that change with FAN because it only affected that neighborhood. Mr. Egner related the upcoming infill proposal would apply a 7.5 foot minimum side yard setback and a 15-foot minimum rear yard setback in FAN that would apply to both primary structures and accessory structures over 18 feet high. Accessory sti1ictutes coUld not be any higher than the primary structure. He noted the proposed rear yard setback left enough space to park a vehicle in front of an alley-accessed garage. He said the side street setback on a corner lot would be increased to 15 feet and he clarified that the City Manager was authori_?:ed to decide which elevation was to be considered the street front. Commissioner Brockman was concerned that dwelling units in the upper stories of accessory structures and garages would affect the neighbor's privacy. Staff indicated they had removed some references to Clustered Development, but they explained such development was not being discouraged and was still al_lowed in a ' Planned Development. Mr. Egner announced that staff would remove proposed East End Commercial (EC) Zone changes from the proposed update so it could be considered in a separate process because of the extent of rewriting. Be noted they propo!:;ed to reduce the 40% open space requirement for a residential project in that zone because it did not make sense in a commercial area. He pointed out the size limitation for commercial use woUld • be rneasll!ed according to the ''toW floor area," instead of "gross leasable area," so it was easier to administer. Staff explained the City had received II1Ultiple requests for dqg daycare over the past two years. They clarified that Daily Pet Care was not the same as an Animal Boarding Facility (kennel). They said they were not sure if it made any difference whether Daily Pet Care was or was not fully or partially conducted within a building. They said "fully conducted" meant the exercise area was also within the building. They advised that staff did not favor allowing dog daycare as a home occupation. The Commissioners anticipated that pet boarding services would also offer dog-walking service in the neighborhood or to a park. Staff agreed to consider how to address that. Staff explained the proposed changes would allow outpatient clinics as a permitted use in places they were previously prohibited, but they would still be subject to the Parking standards. They observed such use was typically oriented to a highway. The Commissioners recalled that there were many different types of clinics, including mental health services, and such uses might raise parking and traffic issues that might not be 1 compatible with suburban office campuses._ Staff explained they would be subject to different parking standards than office use. _ They pointed out the few parcels that wou1d be affected by the change including an area along Bangy Road that was-not yet in the City. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 24,2008 Page4 of5 • • Staff explained they proposed changes to address arcades, dance artd fitness studios and facilities in a more consistent manner. Larger facilities would be classified as Conditional Uses. They noted the City h~d n:1any such existing businesses that were currently classified differently in different zones. The Commissioners observed that this change of zoning and the change in treatment of medical clinics wete policy decisions that required public input. They also agreed that the proposed decre~e in required setback between a commercial use .and high-density residential use was a policy decision. Staff explained it helped promote the City's goal to have more mixed use and density in town centers. Conunissioner Brockman questioned why commercial should be allowed to be closet to a multifamily residence than a single-family residence. Comrilissioner Siegel suggested offering the reduced setback as an incentive for mixed use that included residential use. The proposed code update limited the size of a single conunercial business in the EC and Mixed Commerce (MC) Zones. The Planning Commission had discussed this in the past, but the Commissioners could not recall the discussion, so Mr. Egner offered to research that. Staff planned to bring a second package of proposed code updates to the next Planning Commission meeting. VII. OTHER BUSINESS """'"PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Broclqna,n asce$ined · that none of the Commissioners had yet received their disclosure forms from the state ethics commission. - • VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT • Staff announced they were preparing the amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines the Comrtlissioners had discussed at a previous meeting. Commissioner Siegel saw a need to fashion a public involvement process regiU'ding the code changes the Commissioners had decided were policy decisions. IX. ADJOURNMENT There· being no further business· before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Webster adjourned the meeting at 8:20p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 24,2008 Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative Support Page 5 of5